User-based Blending

The traditional approach to modeling is for modeling experts to observe, analyze, synthesize, etc. to produce a model of a real world decision space. This model is then used by a non-expert model user to explore that decision space.

Occasionally, a modeling tool emerges that allows non-experts to create fairly sophisticated models without expert intervention....the one I always think of is electronic spreadsheets, which were the initial killer app for the PC.

A potentially interesting development in user-based, non-expert, modeling tools is described in a recent TED presention...Siftables from David Merrill of the MIT Media Lab. The basic idea raises interesting possibilities and questions. For example, each Siftable could be instrumented to monitor how it is used, and log and report that data to a central repository which could then be mined by experts for insight into how to modify the existing Siftables' methods, display, etc. Or, users and experts could use Siftables as a collaborative design artifact to explore how to define a decision space. Or, Siftables could be used as a distributed workflow data collection tool by distributing them to individuals in a value chain/net with instructions on how to model decisions/workflows in that chain/net....sort of a physical wikipedia entry creation activity.

This sort of thing has been enabled in a virtual way with multi-touch capabilities like Microsoft's Surface. However, it may be that Surface is too configurable to efficiently address some modeling needs...the physical constraints imposed by Siftables may actually help catalyze more effective exploration in some situations.

Maybe this goes nowhere, but it seems like an innovative new way to explore a decision space by blending the physical and information domains...it's that distinctive blending of the two that I find most fascinating.

Shifting Identity

In a world where ideas, values, and beliefs constantly swirl, individual identity arguably is more fluid than it was, say, 100 years ago. Whether the same is true of organizations is unclear; they often struggle with establishing an identity, much less working to establish a new one.

A new HBS Working Paper ("Technology , Identity, and Inertia through the lens of 'The Digital Photography Company'", Mary Tripsas, August 2008) sheds some helpful light on this topic by discussing the place of identity in organizational sensemaking in times of transition.

When it comes to defining a company's strategic direction, those of us with a business background tend to think of frameworks that are more ontologically oriented (e.g., SWOT) than those that are epistemologically-oriented (e.g., Cynefin). And, unless we have an interest in sociology or anthropology, we probably never think of identity. The closest we get is terms like "culture", but they tend to lack the sense of purpose that comes with identity.

Here's a few of the paper's key points that are consistent with what I've observed in the workplace over the past few years.

• Tripsas notes that identity is both internal and external. It's not just how individuals and groups see themselves within the company, but how customers, suppliers, competitors, and financial analysts see the company.
• External identity often serves as a "forcing function". One aspect of this is that organizational identity is coupled to its business context...if key aspect(s) change enough, it forces an identity crisis. And, external identity helps solidify an emerging internal identity.
• When identity must change, a period of ambiguity is important in establishing a new identity. This is clearly Complex space.
• "Established firms have particular difficulty adapting to ... change that requires the acquisition of fundamentally new knowledge and routines. .... Some routines such as TQM that are meant to improve a firm's efficiency in a core business crowd out more exploratory initiatives, limiting the firm's ability to take advantage of novel opportunities." I suspect this is especially true in industries (e.g., automotive, defense) that have placed a lot of emphasis on improving exploitation.
• "As the core essence of the organization, identity directs and constrains action. The routines, procedures, information filters, capabilities, knowledge base, and beliefs of an organization all reflect its identity." This is perhaps the key point...since identity tends to be perceived as ground (not figure), it tends to shape more than be shaped.

As I've said before, the topic of organizational identity is probably underappreciated. This was perhaps understandable 30-40 years ago. It's much less so today as the effects of hyperconnectivity and hypercollaboration begin to fundamentally restructure the business landscape.

For a more conceptual discussion of organizational identity, see Kurtz & Snowden's "Bramble Bushes in a Thicket" at http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/52_Bramble_Bushes_in_a_Thicket.pdf

Business Case ROI

In this article, Susan Case asked if business cases are a waste of time. Her answer was "yes", but do them anyway.

Although she didn't quite put it this way, what I heard her saying was that opportunities are often a mixture of Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic (Cynefin taxonomy). We tend to limit business cases to the analytic (i.e., Complicated) domain.

However, most opportunities will have Complex aspects that must be addressed with techniques that are more exploratory than exploitative. Susan clearly understands this and helps highlight the limits of analysis in achieving a positive ROI when pursuing an opportunity.